Appeal 6001913

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference to “retrospective” has been omitted from the description of development above as it is not a form of development. However, the application form confirms that the development has been largely completed. On the site visit I saw that the front and right hand flank wall had been rendered but the left hand flank wall had not.

Policies in the emerging Dudley Local Plan, published 2024 have been cited in the decision notice. The emerging policies relevant to this appeal are broadly consistent with equivalent policies in the Dudley Borough Development Strategy,

However, as the emerging Local Plan is currently at Examination stage, I afford its policies only limited weight.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is occupied by a two storey detached house set back from the road. Originally brick built, to the front it has a shallow, curved projecting bay window running through two storeys, to the right of the front door. There was a decorative brick arch over the entrance door, which adds interest to the façade, and projecting brick sills to windows, neither of which are shown on the existing elevation drawings. The curved panel between the ground and first floor to the bay window is clad in metal sheets, now painted.

The house sits at the east end of a long run of similar two-storey, semi-detached properties. In common with [site address] (No 33), they are of a broadly consistent design, being brick built, with decorative brick arches over front entrances and with two storey projecting bay windows. They are all on a comparable building line, set back behind front gardens, which also adds to the uniformity of the group. With the exception of [address], they all retain their brick facing to the main body of the house.

The development is for the rendering of all external brickwork, including the front and flank walls. To the front elevation this has resulted in the loss of the visual texture of the facing brickwork, loss of decorative brick detailing, and loss of the visual contrast between the brickwork and cladding to the bay window. The visually austere nature of the development is exacerbated by the hard landscaping to the front garden area. The development, therefore, harms the character and appearance of the appeal site.

No 33 is visible in views along the street from the west, where it appears at the end of the long run of semi-detached properties. The loss of detailing and change in materials, contrasts unfavourably with the uniformity of the neighbouring properties and is at odds with the prevailing character of the group.

Although there is some screening provided by street trees and those in the neighbouring gardens, these do not adequately screen or soften the harmful visual impacts of the development. Such features are not permanent and may change seasonally and over time.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2023, states that the rendering of a brick-built property is unlikely to be supported where it would be out of character with the wider street scene. It also advises that “[name]” can be used for home insulation, however, the materials used should match those of the existing property, and brick slips can be used to retain the existing look of the property while offering additional insulation. The development, therefore, does not accord with advice in the SPD.

For the reasons given above, the development harms the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, 2011, and Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, 2017. These policies, taken together, seek to deliver high quality development which respects and is responsive to the character of the surrounding area. This is in a similar vein to Policies DLP14 and DLP39 of the emerging Dudley Local Plan.

Paragraph 161 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the planning system should support the transition to net zero. However, the Framework should be read as a whole, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that any environmental benefits from the development could not be delivered in ways which do not harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is not in a conservation area, nor is No 33 a listed building; however, these are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and do not diminish the harm that I have found on the main issue. The appellant states that the colour of render will not be as noticeable as it weathers over time. That may be so; however, it does not address the impact of the development through the change in materials, and the render could be re-painted at any time in the future.

A number of examples of rendered buildings have been brought to my attention. No details have been provided for each case, such as their locations relative to the appeal site or how they are directly comparable with the development at No 33. At my site visit I observed rendered houses in the vicinity of the appeal site, but outside the group of which it forms a part. However, unlike the appeal site, they appear to have been rendered originally, retain some brick detailing, or were not one element of a larger, visually cohesive group of buildings. The appellant’s examples of individual rendered houses within a terrace, or pair of semi-detached houses, illustrate the harmful visual impact such a change in materials can have. I therefore attach limited weight to these comparisons.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.